Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"The U.S. Air Force's (USAF's) current approach to sizing and shaping non-maintenance agile combat support (ACS) manpower often results in a discrepancy between the supply of ACS forces and operational demands because much of ACS is sized and shaped to meet the requirements of home-station installation operations, not expeditionary operations. This report proposes a more enterprise-oriented approach to measuring ACS manpower requirements by synthesizing combatant commander operational plans, Defense Planning Scenarios, functional area deployment rules, and subject-matter expert input. Using these new expeditionary metrics to assess the capacity of the current ACS manpower mix to support expeditionary operations, this report finds that there are imbalances among its career fields relative to expeditionary demands. To address these imbalances, it develops and assesses several rebalanced manpower mixes and finds that the USAF can achieve more expeditionary ACS capacity than it currently has by realigning manpower, and it can realize substantial savings by reducing end strength and substituting civilian billets for military billets."--Abstract on web page.

Manpower planning --- Military planning --- Air Forces --- Military & Naval Science --- Law, Politics & Government --- United States. --- Organization. --- Ground support. --- Operational readiness. --- AF (Air force) --- Air Force (U.S.) --- U.S.A.F. (Air force) --- United States Air Force --- US Air Force --- USAF (Air force)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Since 2016, Plan Blue wargames have explored scenarios that depict large-scale war fights against state adversaries in order to help U.S. Department of the Air Force (DAF) leaders better understand the demands of these potential war fights, evaluate the capabilities and limitations of programmed forces to meet those demands, and test new approaches to projecting power. The 2021 iteration of the game (Plan Blue 21) was set in the Arctic, in keeping with the Department of Defense's 2019 Arctic strategy, which calls for enhancing capabilities for operations in the region and strengthening the rules-based order there. The purpose of the game was to increase the DAF's understanding of the capabilities, posture, allied command, control, and communication relationships that may be called for to support future Arctic operations. Focusing on competition with Russia in the year 2030, game play took place in the context of steady-state competition and crisis operations rather than large-scale combat, and it explored the intersection of two key trends: (1) changing environmental conditions and (2) the completion of current Russian investments in new military capabilities and infrastructure in the Arctic. Plan Blue 21 was also specifically designed to test the extent to which capabilities for persistent and visible intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance can provide real-time situational awareness and potentially contribute to “deterrence by detection.” U.S. players in Plan Blue 21 benefitted greatly from the participation of officers from key allied and partner countries that have important interests in and capabilities for operations in the Arctic region.